5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and currently resides in Kyiv.
6.  The applicant is a former employee of the State Committee on Nationalities and Migration (the “Committee”).
7.  On 15 December 1999 the President issued a decree “on changes to the structure of central government bodies” and liquidated the Committee. The decree also gave instructions to the Cabinet of Ministers (the “CM”) to control and manage the liquidation of the Committee.
8.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a secretarial assistant, with effect from 31 March 2000.
9.  On 4 April 2000 the CM decided to abolish this Committee and to create a Department of Nationalities and Migration within the Ministry of Justice. Some functions of the Committee were transferred to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Culture.
10.  In April 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (the “Pechersky Court”) against the CM, seeking the recovery of unpaid salary.
11.  On 22 May 2001 the court allowed his claims. It decided that the CM was liable for the salary debt and ordered it to pay the applicant UAH 4,241[1] in compensation. In particular, it found that the CM, as the body responsible for managing and financing the liquidation of the Committee and a central body of executive power, was to ensure payment of the debt to the applicant.
12.  The writ of enforcement was issued on 20 July 2001.
13.  On 1 August 2001 the Pechersky District Bailiffs’ Service (the “PDBS”) commenced the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2001.
14.  On 20 November 2001 the First Deputy Prime Minister requested the Pechersky Court to suspend the enforcement proceedings in the case in view of the appeal in cassation pending before the Supreme Court. On the same date the CM lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, through the Pechersky Court.
15.  On 7 December 2001 the Pechersky Court suspended the enforcement of that judgment in view of the pending cassation appeal.
16.  On 20 May 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the CM’s cassation appeal as being unsubstantiated. On 16 July 2002 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
17.  On 10 October 2002 the Pechersky Court heard the request of the PDBS for an interpretation of the procedure for the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2001. In particular, it specified that the CM was responsible for the payment of the award.
18.  On 19 November 2002 the Deputy State Secretary of the CM, notwithstanding the ruling of 10 October 2002, informed the PDBS that the CM was a collegiate body and not a legal entity, and did not have its own funds or bank accounts that would contain such funds. He therefore concluded that the judgment of 22 May 2001 could not be enforced.
19.  On 27 November 2002 the PDBS returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant as it found that the CM had no funds and was not a legal entity.
20.  On 27 January 2003 the Golosiyivsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Golosiyivsky Court”) declared the failure of the PDBS to enforce the judgment of 22 May 2001 unlawful. It also ordered the PDBS to reinitiate the enforcement proceedings and comply with its obligations.
21.  On 18 February 2002 the PDBS reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.
22.  On 24 March 2003 the PDBS informed the Pechersky Court that it could not enforce the judgment of 22 May 2001 as the CM was not a legal entity or physical person, and that it had no bank accounts or property of its own. It therefore asked the court to interpret the procedure for that judgment’s enforcement.
23.  On 19 June 2003 the Pechersky Court rejected the PDBS’s request as unsubstantiated. In particular, it held that the decision was sufficiently clear and there were no grounds for its further interpretation.
24.  On 25 July 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed and the CM was requested to pay the salary debt to the applicant.
25.  On 4 August 2003 the PDBS suspended the enforcement proceedings in the case.
26.  On 11 November 2003 the PDBS returned the writs of enforcement to the applicant as the CM had no funds and its property could not be attached due to the moratorium on the forced sale of State property.
27.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Golosiyivsky Court. On 9 December 2003 the Golosiyivsky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the PDBS’s decision of 11 November 2003. On 26 February 2004 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s appeal. In particular, it stated that the CM was not a legal person and its status was not determined by the law. It also found that the applicant had not appealed against the ruling of 3 February 2004 to the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 29 below).
28.  On 3 February 2004 the Pechersky Court rejected the applicant’s request to change the procedure for the enforcement of the judgment. In particular, the applicant demanded that the Logistics Department of the Secretariat of the CM pay him the debt awarded by the judgment of 22 May 2001. The court ruled that the Logistics Department was not liable for the CM’s debts.
29.  In February 2004 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the Pechersky Court against the CM, seeking compensation for the delay in payment of the debt awarded by the judgment of 22 May 2001 in non-pecuniary damage. On 13 February 2004 the court rejected his claims. On 5 and 26 March 2004 the Pechersky Court refused the applicant leave to appeal as the applicant had failed to mention the postal index of the CM or provide the necessary number of copies of his appeal.
30.  According to the parties’ submissions, the judgment of 22 May 2001 remains unenforced.